Adaptive Clustering Techniques for Software Components and Architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software components analysis is a critical technique for software development and maintenance. Clustering techniques have been widely used in grouping related software components. However, software is complex, but clustering techniques used in software engineering typically adopt only one metric to measure the similarity of components. This paper proposes an adaptive fuzzy clustering technique based on possibilistic clustering algorithms to address the issue of single metric. The proposed technique collaboratively considers distance, density, and the trend of density change of component instances in the membership degree calculation. The post clustering separation of clustered components based on the predefined thresholds and regrouping of the separated component points result in higher cohesive clustering. The proposed algorithm has been evaluated via experiments using a network protocol RSVP-TE system. The comparison of Hierarchical, Self-organizing map (SOM), and fuzzy c-means (FCM) against adaptive fuzzy clustering proposed in this paper indicates that the adaptive fuzzy clustering group software component instances into more cohesive clusters while it is also insensitive to parameter settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".